[168211] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: best practice for advertising peering fabric routes
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher Morrow)
Wed Jan 15 13:22:36 2014
In-Reply-To: <20140115175402.GB67472@burnout.tpb.net>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 13:22:20 -0500
From: Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com>
To: nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:54 PM, Niels Bakker <niels=nanog@bakker.net> wrote:
> * nanog@shankland.org (Jim Shankland) [Wed 15 Jan 2014, 18:04 CET]:
>
>> So ... RFC1918 addresses for the IXP fabric, then?
>>
>> (Half kidding, but still ....)
>
>
> They need to be globally unique.
do they? :)
also... there is/was an exchange in south america (columbia maybe?
it's been a while since I saw this in configs) that used
192.168.0.0/16 space for their exchange.
